Thursday, June 9, 2016

Back a while ago I posted this: "Dembski Design Filter . . . Success?". It was about how the Discovery Institute (DI) took their 'design filter' and 'used it' to come to a conclusion that archaeologists had already come to using real science. Afterwards, the DI claimed some sort of victory . . . for what I am still confused about.

So let's think about this for a minute. Wild Bill Dembski draws a line in the sand and claims that things on one side of the line are designed and things on the other side of the line are natural. He claims that the line represents some arbitrary level of complexity and that nothing above a certain 'level of complexity' can be the product of a natural process. However, he forgot to finish the job before departing the DI, because other mathematicians who looked at what he wrote have pretty much said that it's junk. While I am paraphrasing, Dembski's response was actually more childish. His response was that pretty much every other mathematician on the planet wasn't smart enough to understand. Yea, like Wild Bill is the smartest man on the planet. Well he might be smart, because he's left the DI, but he failed to take his 'crap' with him.You see, one of his problems is that he has no viable evidence supporting his assumption that natural processes cannot create complexity to any varying degree. So that makes his 'line' one that cannot be determined with any degree of accuracy. How can you determine 'complexity' when the very idea basically an opinion. Look up complexity in the dictionary and you will see what I mean. It's one of the most circular definitions I have seen. Here's one:

"the quality or state of not being simple, the quality or state of being complex, a part of something that is complicated or hard to understand"(Merriam-Webster: Complexity)

Well, the DI is doing it again, "A Design False Positive? Applying the Design Filter in Archaeology" claiming some sort of success because they have determined something that archaeologists have already determined . . . again. Seriously, does anyone believe the design filter is (1) a tool in use by archaeologists or (2) that there is anyone capable of using a tool that is as well defined as smoke?

I also disagree with the title. Wouldn't a 'False Positive' be the case if their tool determined that the objects under archaeologist discussion had been found to be designed, when they weren't? That would be a false positive. A false positive is more like a positive results for the flu when you really don't have it. Coming to the conclusion that the objects were not designed is a negative not a positive. And the DI came the same conclusion the archaeologists came too after doing actual scientific work, doesn't sound like a false positive, does it?

Hmmm, so let's see. How about an analogy. Let's also keep it pretty simple, for the benefit of the DI. You are a mechanic and you have a nut you need to tighten. You grab the appropriate wrench and tighten the nut. After you are done, along comes a DI marketeer who sees the tightened nut and claims the mechanic tightened it using his tool, a tool no one has ever seen. The DI comes around after the fact and tries to use your work to bolster their nonsensical claims. Isn't that what they are doing when they claim things like:

"Archaeology is intelligent design in action"

Are the archaeologists using Dembski's design filter? Do they use any part of Intelligent Design 'theory'? Does anyone? Is there any part of design 'theory' that is capable of being 'used'? I bet the archaeologists would be surprised if they bothered to read the DI's press release. Of course the reality is nothing of the sort. What this is, is an example of using intelligence, well that plus actual measurements, instruments, and analysis . . . you know the science-y stuff the DI seems to be allergic too. Using intelligence is not the same thing as Intelligent Design, they just keep trying to make that sort of connection in hopes they can convince some folks that ID is something other than conjecture and wishful thinking. What Dembski's filter has to do with intelligence is a bit beyond . . . well . . . everyone.

So the DI claims another victory for a tool that only seems to come out of the toolbox after all the work is done, but . . . it's a success! Let's use toast them for yet another meaningless and unsupportable victory!

No comments:

Post a Comment

Welcome to my little corner of the Internet

This blog is more a way for me to clarify my own thinking and opinions more than for any other purpose. I like writing things down, having links to source material, and offering my own $.02. I find a blog let's me do that. I encourage comments and emails from any who wish to do so. I am not shy, as you might have noticed, and I am also not afraid of a dissenting view. I might disagree with you, but I will defend your right to say what you think as well as I expect the same respect!

Why blog on this particular topic? Well after seeing the tactics of groups like the Discovery Institute, I couldn't stay silent on the subject. After the Discovery Institute spins their lies, after the defendants in the Dover trial LIED under oath, and after Texas fired their state science curriculum director for forwarding an email appropriate to her duties-- I couldn't sit back and just watch.

I don't filter any comments, with two exceptions. Comments that are nothing more than a link to some other website hawking some service or material will get deleted. Also any comment that is abusive or derogatory will also get deleted. To date (July 2016) I have had to delete very few service/material types and only one truly abusive comment!

Thanks.

About Me

I am a family man who works in Ohio, Information Technology and computer programming are my areas of expertise. For those of you who know me, growing grass in my backyard is obviously not, so quit laughing!
Why blog? In all honesty, why not? It's fun, has been very educational, and it also has offered me insights into people and positions I may not have thought much about before. (http://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers)